My opponent said that he will be taking umbrage to my first few lines. It’s odd for someone to say that he will be offended by words that he has already read. Why is he not taking umbrage now? But that is a minor point. I am taking umbrage with my opponent’s viewpoint that it is okay to treat ugly-faced people like crap, a view expressed by at least one other debater on this site named Ellen. In this post I will explain why there are no arguments that could ever work to support the resolution that it is okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap.

ARGUMENTS

1- subjectivityI actually believe that beauty is mostly objective, but I see the objectivity of beauty only in areas that can be analyzed into parts (movies, music, paintings etc.) I am suspicious that beauty or ugliness can be objectively identified in something like a person’s face. What criterion would we use for determining such a thing? We cannot simply rely on the popular opinion, because that may be wrong. So without a way to determine who is ugly and who is not, we cannot say that we should treat people with ugly faces like crap.

2- “is” does not entail “ought”Even if it is true that people who are considered to have ugly faces are treated like crap, that does not mean that they should be treated like crap. Just because something is the case does not mean that it ought to be the case. There are no facts about the world that entail that people with ugly faces should be treated like crap.

3- no connection between ugly face and ugly personalityThe ugliness of beauty of someone’s face has nothing to do with the personality of the person. Even if a person has an ugly face, it does not mean that they have an ugly soul. And why should we punish someone for their face, when their face is not something over which he or she has any control. We should only judge people based on their chosen actions. People with ugly faces may be extremelytalented, or smart, or athletic, or whatever. These positive attributes are enough that we should not treat them like crap.

CONCLUSION

There are no reasons why it is okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap. All possible reasons that could be used to support that resolution are fallacious.

My opponent has missed the point; in not defining the should, he has become lost in the argument. The 'should' refers to the 'okay part' and not the 'treat'. He would do well to mark the difference between 'should it be okay' (should it be okay to drink tea before bed) and 'we should' (should we drink tea before bed). A subtle but large difference. In any case, I will not be using this time for rebuttals but instead by main argument.

I will be arguing the following points:

1. Lack of existence of a moral ought (normative ethics)

2. Dangers of outright denunciation of an action or actions

3. Benefits of allowing consequences to shape ethical and social norms

Lack of a moral ought

There is no objective or definitive basis on which to call any action right or wrong; one has no objective basis to say one ought to do a given action, or not. This, at first, may seem like a contentious point. However, if one considers morality, one will see that there is no common source from which to it can be derived. The only way for objective morality is if it is given to us by a God or Gods. However, an argument for divine law is unacceptable; there are many theories of what God or Gods want us to do as well as the option that no God exists. One cannot be sure one's morals are correct. Without morals handed to us, we have no choice but to make up our own; to see what works.

While there may be inter-subjectivity in our morality (people agree on what they view as moral), there is no objectivity. Examples of this subjectivity can be seen in that morally wrong actions by today's standards have been accepted as moral goods in previous times. Slavery, rape (of losers of war), pillaging, looting, homophobia, sexism, burying of female babies etc. have all been considered at one point or another to be acceptable. Thus to say that being mean to ugly people is good or bad has no basis. Actions are all amoral; no moral value is intrinsic to an action, it is only applied by an agent (a person). Actions are not good or bad, they simply exist, they occur, they are 'okay.' Note that 'okay' is a neutral term, far more neutral than the 'bad' my opponent wishes to objectively ascribe to actions.

This is not to say that because there is no basis on which to call an action 'bad' that all actions can be performed with society's acceptance. There are consequences to actions which shape ethical norms (we will move onto this in section 3)

Dangers of outright denunciation

The ability for leaders of a society or a community to be allowed to call an action good or bad or acceptable or unacceptable is overwhelmingly negative and dangerous. It allows for the actions mentioned above (rape, murder etc.) to be deemed as good when in fact they damage society. In today's day and age, societies and communities still dictate social and ethical good; homophobia & sexism are examples of detrimental acts still enforced by institutions when such acts do no benefit the society to which they are dictated. One is not arguing that tomorrow rape will become acceptable and widespread but that the infrastructure for harmful and dangerous prejudices to fall into place within our society exists.

Rather than treat the symptom of social injustice, we should remove the underlying cause; he ability for a group of influential people to dictate what is good and bad, despite the consequences. We should prevent the ability of people to call sexism right and to do so we must remove their power to dictate what is right or wrong.

One may then ask the following question; on what basis can we punish those who harm society? If we cannot call an action wrong objectively or instruct that an action be reprehensible, how do we enforce the law? How do we protect ourselves? The third point in my argument comes into effect.

Benefits of allowing consequences to shape ethical and social norms

Rather than relying on what previous people have dictated as being right or wrong, we should allow society's natural response to actions to govern the consequences surrounding it. In order to elucidate on my point let us look at a small early human community.

The community is very small and thus actions of individuals have great effects. There is only so much murder the community can handle before failing. So murder is rejected. There is only so much rape, or abuse or assault the community can take. So these are all rejected. Apathy, disorder and arguments are frowned upon; they bring discord to where there is peace. Empathy, kindness and love are embraced; they bring harmony where there is chaos.

What can we learn from this community? By allowing the success of the collective to be the yardstick, one has reached a state where one rejects or accepts certain actions. No-one has dictated that murder is wrong or love is good; these have been established by the consequences they have. Thus to say that an action is good or bad is foolish when the option to allow the action to speak for itself exists.

This does not mean we allow rape to happen so people can gauge what they think of it. The mere intent, consideration, or attraction of a person to rape is an action enough to see the reaction of the people. Rape will always earn my rage, and thus I will try to stop it from happening. It should be noted that this conclusion is reached independent of an objective denunciation or dictation from an authority. We see this in a parent saying to a child 'Do you what you want. But there will be consequences.' This is seen as a far more grown up way of tackling actions; rather than being told that something is right, one must do so using the consequences.

What have we learnt?

1. We cannot objectively say and action is good or bad.

2. It is dangerous for the ruling class of a society or community to be able to dictate what is good or bad.

3. Actions can be accepted or rejected based on the consequences (this is subjective but can have inter-subjectivity)

This may be a hard pill to swallow. However, we must stay on issue here. Let us not be foolish; everyone has an idea of good and bad and where being mean to ugly people falls on this line. However, for us to definitively dictate the value and morality of this action would be foolish to the highest order. It would set the worst precedent for future actions and, as we have established, is the wrong way of approaching an action. We should instead let the consequences shape how accepted this act is and by extension, its prevalence.

On a point of my opponent's conduct

There have been a number of points with which I must take issue

1. My opponent has seen it fit to ascribe me with a viewpoint (that we should be mean to ugly people) and that if I don't defend this view (which isn't mine) I lack integrity. This can be seen in his round 1 comments. I find this to be totally unacceptable. It undermines my position as it gives people conceptions of my argument and standpoint before I've had my say. There is a fine line between rhetoric and foul play. I believe my opponent has overstepped the mark.

2. My opponent has exasperatedly complained about having to change the title "Should it be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap" to "We Should Not Treat People With Ugly Faces Like Crap" l. However, his anger is misplaced; as you can tell from my argument, a lot relied on the 'should' applying to the 'okay.' This changes the nature of the debate from how we should act to how we should judge actions; a subtle and important distinction. I find my opponents anger to be misplaced and ill judged. By instructing me to 'wise up' he belittles what is an extremely important distinction.

It is also a shame that my opponent sees my phrase 'I will take umbrage' as a literal statement and seeks to belittle it as opposed to recognising it as a heads up that I will formally outline the offence taken. Perhaps now it is clear.

Thank you to muffin8or for his round two posting. In round two of this argument, he has presented several illogical arguments which I will address in this round.

First he tells us that there is a "subtle but large difference" between saying "We should treat people with ugly faces like crap" and "It should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap" though he does not explain what the large difference is. He is merely mincing words. I wanted to go with the less cumbersome title, but this is the one he wanted. Oh well.

My opponent said that he will not rebut the arguments I put forth in round two. That"s unfortunate; because he is required to if he wants to prove his resolution.

I would like to remind my opponent that he must argue for the resolution that it should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap, while I must argue against it. He has the burden. I have the status quo. With that, I turn to his arguments.

ARGUMENTS

1- My opponent"s first argument is that there is no objective morality. He says that for morality to be objective, it must come from God, but people have differing views of what God considers to be moral, so God-based morality is impossible.

1A- belief does not entail truth I agree that if morality exists, it comes from God, but I do not agree that God-based morality is impossible simply because people disagree on what God deems to be moral. My opponent is presenting a textbook non-sequiter. If two people disagree about whether the moon exists, does that mean that there is no truth about the existence of the moon? Of course not. Lack of agreement over topic x does not entail lack of truth over topic x. Similarly, change of attitude over time on topic x does not entail lack of truth over topic x.

1B- negation of the debate But let us suppose that my opponent is right. Does that support his resolution, or hurt it? Actually, it undermines both the resolution and the negation of the resolution. It undermines the whole debate. If there is no morality, then I cannot argue against the resolution, and my opponent cannot argue for it, since they both presuppose the objectivity of morality. So my opponent"s first argument, even if right, is a conversation stopper and ends the debate in a tie.

2- My opponent"s second argument is that it is dangerous to outright forbid any action. The ruling class of a society should not dictate what is good or bad.

2A- not applicable to the resolution I partially agree with my opponent. I believe that it is dangerous to outright forbid certain kinds of actions. One might generally oppose torture but conceivably there are cases in which forbidding it would be inappropriate. I do not agree that this rule can simply be applied to anything. I think that there are at least some actions that should be outright forbidden, in all cases. Treating ugly people like crap would obviously be one of them. My opponent applies the rule to good examples but neglects to apply it to the actual resolution. His argument is thus irrelevant.

2B- irrelevance And the whole thing about ruling classes or dictators is irrelevant too. Forbiddance of actions need not come from such sources. It can come purely from common sense. Ugly people are human beings and they deserve respect, regardless of what their faces look like, which by the way is beyond their control.

3- My opponent"s third argument is that we should use society"s opinion on the consequences of an action as a judge to decide whether it is right or wrong.

3A- self-refuting point First of all, I disagree that we should only consider the consequences of an action to determine whether or not it is moral. That is hardly an axiomatic view and there are obvious criticisms of this kind of view, but it is not necessary for me to bring them up here. The bigger point here is that my opponent has actually refuted himself! Though unlike his first argument in which he refuted both of us, in this one he has only refuted himself. If we go by society"s opinion, then we are forced to say that it should not be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap, since that appears to be what most people believe. So my opponent has done my work for me by arguing against the resolution and supporting the Con side, my side. Thank you.

3B- possibility does not entail reality or likelihood Merely suggesting the possibility that society may change its view on what it considers moral (with the implication that it may at one point consider that is should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap) is insufficient to make the case that it actually is the case that it should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap. I may say that there is a possibility that pigs may fly, but it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific theory unless I can provide a reason why it is likely. My opponent has given us no reason why he thinks that it may one day be in society"s interest to treat people with ugly faces like crap.

This point also applies to my opponent"s second argument. He has given no reason for why he thinks that the absolute forbiddance of treating ugly people like crap may at one point be "dangerous".

CONCLUSION

My opponent still does not want to take responsibility for his own words. Despite the fact that he accepted this debate, his arguments do not defend the resolution which he agreed to defend. His arguments might be good for a debate over whether or not there is objective morality, or for a debate over consequentialism versus deontology, but they are irrelevant for this debate topic.

Bottom line: It Should Never Be Okay to Treat People With Ugly Faces Like Crap, Ever.

SEE COMMENT SECTION FOR MY REBUTTALS TO HIS POINTS ON CONDUCT

VOTE

grammar/spelling: tie My opponent and I both displayed proper spelling and grammar.

conduct: conConduct to me for several reasons: 1- my opponent agreed to defend the degrading statement thatit should be okay to treat ugly people like crap. It is offensive and rude. 2- My opponent minced words about the debate title and asked me to change it back to its exact wording, otherwise he would not accept. 3- He accused me of ascribing a view to him which he does not hold, yet his own words suggest that he does hold the view.

arguments: con My arguments in round two are unrefuted, and my arguments for round three refute all of my opponent’sarguments.

sources: tie No sources were necessary on either side, as this was a purely philosophical debate.

My opponent still fails to see the difference between 'should be okay to' and 'should.' Evidence that he cannot see the distinction is found in the following:

"First he tells us that there is a "subtle but large difference" between saying "We should treat people with ugly faces like crap" and "It should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap" though he does not explain what the large difference is."

I explained it in the first lines of Round 2. I will state it in a different way. Take the following two questions:

a. "Is it okay to go to bed at 10pm?"

b. "Should we go to bed at 10pm?"

Question a asks if it is acceptable to go to bed at 10pm, i.e. if one is allowed to do go to bed at 10pm. Question b asks if going to bed at 10pm is the preferred state. i.e. if it would be better to go to bed at 10pm. The current question is, is it acceptable to treat ugly people like crap, i.e. what moral judgement should we pass on it (the moral judgement is my issue of contention). The previous title of the debate asked if treating ugly people like crap was a preferred state.

Issues with my opponent's approach

1. My opponent stated: "My opponent said that he will not rebut the arguments I put forth in round two. That's unfortunate; because he is required to if he wants to prove his resolution."

My opponent has pre-empted my round three if we were to look at his own structure outlined in Round 1 we would see the following:

I stated I would not use the time for rebuttals as my explanation of why my opponent has missed the point (see 'Missing the Point')

2. My opponent pre-empts my round 3 again by directing people on how to vote. This is highly unprofessional as half of my debate time (Round 1 was purely for acceptance) had not yet elapsed.

3. He accuses the mere accepting of this debate as poor conduct:

"My opponent agreed to defend the degrading statement that it should be okay to treat ugly people like crap. It is offensive and rude."

Accepting and arguing the debate has nothing to do with conduct.

Rebuttals

This section shall be devoted to my opponent's arguments in Round 2.

1. " Subjectivity"

Summary: My opponent argues that since we have no way of identifying what ugly is, there is no way of us going about treating ugly people like crap. There can be no way of saying we should.

Critique: See 'Missing the Point.' The point is not that we should treat ugly people like crap, but that we shouldn't pass moral judgement in this forum (forum meaning structure e.g. think tank, moral panel etc.) on those who do.

2. "Is does not entail ought"

Summary: The fact that people are treated like crap, does not mean they should be treated like crap.

Critique: See 'Missing the Point.'

3. - "No connection between ugly face and ugly personality"

Summary: A person does not choose his or her face, and the condition of their face is no measure of their personality. We should pass judgement on a person's character rather than their face and not treat people like crap because they are ugly.

Critique: 'Missing the Point.'

Here ends the rebuttals. My opponent's Round 1 addressed the old debate title and not the new as he has missed the distinction between the two titles.

Counter-counter-arguments

In this section I will be replying to the rebuttals of my opponent, demonstrating their fallaciousness or how he has missed the point.

1. Belief does not entail truth

Summary: God gives us morality. Just because there are conflicting accounts of God, doesn't mean God and his morality does not.

Critique: My opponent has missed the point. The point is that there is not point to accepting a religious moral code as objective as the chances of it being correct are low; it is like a lottery. Furthermore, the very existence of God is unknowable; this introduces another source of doubt. New interpretations of religious morality exist today compared to hundreds of years ago. It is plausible to suggest that currently we have no correct interpretation of religious moral codes as the correct one may arise in the future More doubt.

The point is that we cannot know objective morality, and thus our morals our subjective; we cannot say something is objectively wrong. For development of this point, see my Round 1 argument.

2. "Negation of the debate"

Summary: By stating that morality doesn't exist, one cannot argue that we should or shouldn't treat ugly people like crap as that presumes objective morality.

Critique: 'Missing the Point.'

The fact that there is no objective morality demonstrates that we should not pass judgement in a formal setting (i.e. we should not dictate moral truths)

Summary: It is dangerous to forbid only certain kinds of actions, not dangerous to forbid any actions.

Critique: The point is that passing moral judgement on any action, of a certain kind or not, sets a precedent for judging all actions, of a certain kind or not. The only way to protect ourselves is by not passing judgement.

4. "Irrelevance"

Summary: There is no need to mention ruling classes. Forbiddance can come from common sense; ugly people should not be treated like crap as they are human beings and deserve respect.

Critique: The mentioning of dictators and ruling classes was because these are the people who dictate the morality of our society. While this often reflects the people's view it doesn't have to. Thus, emphasising the need for those who can dictate morality not to is important.

5. "Self-refuting point"

Summary: I have refuted myself as going by society's opinion forces us to say we should not treat people like crap, since that appears to be what most people believe.

Critique: Some basic but important distinctions need to be made. There is a difference between saying the following to statements:

a. A large portion of society holds that treating ugly people like crap is wrong.

b. Treating ugly people like crap is wrong.

I am proposing 'a' as it does not pass an objective, moral judgement on actions. It is simply a reflection of what most people believe. B, however, is a statement concerning objective morals which cannot be made.

My opponent seems to argue that if we don't make moral statements, we cannot use the consequences of society. This is not true. As outlined above, we can. Furthermore, consequences from individuals are the most democratic way of establishing what is accepted in our society.

6. "Possibility does not entail reality or likelihood"

Summary: Suggesting the possibility that society may change its view on morality is insufficient to make the case that it will or that we should therefore treat ugly people like crap. This applies to the second argument where no reason for why the absolute forbiddance of treating ugly people like crap may be "dangerous".

Critique: See 'Missing the Point.'

Furthermore, the statement 'possibility does not entail likelihood' does not make sense; the words are synonyms. As well as this, it is naive to think that society's view on moral issues will remain the same. Simply look at the movement of women's rights in the Middle East or abortion in the West. These are examples of moral issues that are currently changing as we live and breathe.

This argument does not apply to my second argument as I stated the following:

"One is not arguing that tomorrow rape will become acceptable but that the infrastructure for harmful and dangerous prejudices to fall into place within our society exists."

Conclusion

My opponents arguments and counter-arguments from Rounds 1 and 2 have been answered and refuted. There is no issue he has raised which hasn't been shown to be false or missing the point. It is truly a shame that my opponent hasn't made the distinction between the two titles. He has argued with the original title in mind. The problem is, you are voting with the current title in mind. I believe that because of my opponents error, his points are largely irrelevant.

Tell me the logic behind your belief that we should treat people as they look.

Stop trolling.

muffin8or

There is no difference between "should" and "should be okay". You have not explained what the difference is. You lost the debate because your arguments were completely off topic. Don't accept a debate if you don't want to present arguments relevant to the conculsion.

I didn't sign up for a debate that said 'Should we en masse agree to treat the ugly like crap'
I signed up for a debate that said 'Should we morally judge the actions of people who treat ugly people like crap'
That is why I had the title changed and that is why I have said numerous times. Why everyone is missing this easy distinction, is far beyond me. For God's sake, learn the difference between 'should' and 'should be okay'

By reiterating that you gave him 4 points out of 7, you seem to be implying that a vote is only a votebomb if all seven points are given to the loser. Why on earth would that be necessary? A votebomb is any vote in which the voter neglects to provide a good reason or any reason at all, or a vote that shows no indication that the voter has read the entire debate, rather than just looking at the last posting for the last round. The number of points is irrelevant. To whom the points are given and for what reason they are given is the only relevant factor in determining if a vote is a votebomb.

And I refuted what you call "justications", hence your vote is a votebomb.

As I explained, moral nihilism negates the whole debate. Both the resolution and the negation of the resolution rely on the objectivity of ethics. To say that it should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap presupposes that there are objective moral rules, so my opponent undermines not just me but himself. And you ignored all the other points.

And I'm not telling anyone how to vote. I'm only explaining my own evaluation of the debate. If someone who votes disagrees with me, I expect them to provide a reason why.

1A- I did no such thing. I never would have even sent him this direct challenge if not for his immature and self-indicting words in response to the original debate of the same title:
"Damn, I wanted to be pro for this. Well good luck, you chose the easy option. Unless you royally mess up, you have this debate in your pocket." Facts are stubborn things. Aren"t they?

I have engaged in neither rhetoric nor foul play, and I have not overstepped any mark. My opponent"s words are completely without justification.

2- He said that my anger about having to change the debate title is misplaced, and that the debates are different. He said that my original wording of the debate is about how we should act and the rewording is about how we should judge actions.

2A- Wow! They are two sides of the same coin. My opponent is obviously mincing my words. My anger is justified for having to split hairs and change coke to pepsi. But either way, he did not defend EITHER resolution, so it hardly matters.

3- He complains that I belittled his acceptance statement.

3A- I"m sorry if he felt belittled. That was not my intention. I was only trying to show the illogicality of it. And as I said, it is a minor point.

By the way, I find absolutely nothing offensive about my opponent"s arguments. And that is precisely because they have nothing to do with his resolution. He argued to an entirely different point.

Reasons for voting decision: Con correctly stated that just because something is the case, that does not mean that it ought to be the case. Of course, there are many people with ugly faces, but this doesn't mean that these people should be treated like crap. Pro didn't successfully show that people with ugly faces should or ought to be treated like crap. Thus, the argument point goes rightly to Con.

Reasons for voting decision: I read this resolution on the Pro side as being 'It should be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap", which, as CiRk already pointed out, presupposes morality. Pro didn't really refute Con's arguments, except to say "see 'missing the point'". If someone asks "Is it okay to go to bed at 10pm?" and a person replies "it should be okay", the "should" then implies whether it is "right" or "wrong".

Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: The clearest clash is on the contention of nihilism. I believe Con sufficiently refutes this with his argument from presupposition. Using the word "okay" in the resolution denotes that there is a standard of right conduct, which by definition is morality. Regardless of the debate over moral permissibility vs. morality, using the word okay meands that in the Pro world "treating people with ugly faces is okay"...ergo a question of morality. Since the resolution presupposes morality then Con need only win one link to morality to win the round. He wins this with the subjectivity argument: since it is impossible to measure beauty in objective terms then there is no reason why one ought to be subjected to ridicule.
On another note, Pro's contention 2 is inconsistent with his nihilism case because he is using conseqeutnailism as a measure of what ought to be right conduct. Conseqeuntialism is a normative ethical theory.
I gave a point to con because of his case construction

Reasons for voting decision: In R1, we clearly get the impression that the debate is whether poor treatment of ugly people is justified. Pro proceeds to convert it into a semantic debate involving normative ethics. The argument presented by Con are never addressed.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.